Replies: 5 comments 13 replies
-
I don’t have a good recommendation yet on how to change the contract statuses (or the app statuses), but I want to mention two things:
It seems hard to find something to synchronize them. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Having seen the current design, I anticipate that users might misunderstand an "Ended" status, even if we provide a description like "fulfilled, can be re-started" and a tooltip explaining its meaning. Many users might just see the word "Ended" and assume they cannot restart the stream, potentially leading to streams not being resumed when they could be. And a lot of support messages. Have we seen similar behaviour from Lockup users where they missed small details and simply assume something from the big texts? Now in order to keep the "Ended" status in the UI, I'd like to share an idea as below. Lets only have the option to pause with reason in the UI. And implement a dropdown list with predefined reasons, alongside an additional custom field. We can start with guessing a set of reasons that users might have and refine them based on data. One option in the dropdown would be "End the Stream," which would categorize it under the "Ended" status in the UI. It can either be solvent or insolvent but the reason to categorize it as Ended would just be "End the Stream" option. This would lead us to have three categories in UI:
And if we want to maintain an "In Debt" and "Streaming" categories, we can do it as follows:
I think the second option is more complex than the first option. Alternatively, we can have both views and then track analytics to discover the popular one. These are just ideas so feel free to criticise and provide feedback. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
One of the unanswered underlying questions here is this: in the Priority view, should the UI follow the structure hierarchy of the So far, it looks like @razgraf went with the other way around, i.e. structuring the streams by Solvency first. This runs against the Solidity version, but I see why users might be more interested in this categorization. Furthermore, my proposal to remove Here's my synthesized proposal:
WDYT @sablier-labs/engineers? Alternatively, we could stick with Solvent/ Insolvent in the UI, too. WDYT about that, @razgraf? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Closing in favor of #218 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Related: https://github.com/sablier-labs/v2-interfaces/discussions/1054 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
During the first demo of the Flow designs we've uncovered a mismatch between contract-level statuses and front-facing statuses for Flow streams. This comes as a necessity to show clearer or easier-to-understand statuses to user. As a possibly incomplete example, the following may very well be defined as "ended":
@PaulRBerg suggested we work on aligning these statuses before we go to production.
The reasoning behind our current contract-level statuses can be found in the flow diagrams here.
Opening this as a request for ideas and feedback.
@sablier-labs/everybody
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions